Costa Rica mints ?

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces8487.html



Again it would be nice to use the mints table with proper codes for the mints instead of using the year lines?

It's kind of the same as this topic https://en.numista.com/forum/topic120116.html#p978959

I'm not entirely sure what you are suggesting, as none of these coins have a mintmark?

Цитата: "Some_Nerd"​I'm not entirely sure what you are suggesting, as none of these coins have a mintmark?

​I know that, but it's indicated where they were minted and it seems to be year dependant, so why not assign the mints, where they belong?

Цитата: "Sjoelund"​​​I know that, but it's indicated where they were minted and it seems to be year dependant, so why not assign the mints, where they belong?

​And where do they belong?

Цитата: "Some_Nerd"​

Цитата: "Sjoelund"​​​I know that, but it's indicated where they were minted and it seems to be year dependant, so why not assign the mints, where they belong?

​​And where do they belong?

​Between the year and the mintage......

I'm afraid I don't understand. Could you perhaps show me?

This field as it is right now is for mint letters (A-Z and a handful of ascii symbols that are similar enough to the real mintmark).
No words or stand-ins like L for logo or P for plated like in the Canada thread.

Roughly like this:

Is it like this example page that you are wanting >
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces578.html
where most years lines are blank (even though made in Royal Mint)
except for 1912H 1918H 1918KN 1919H 1919KN perhaps?

That's it, but of course I know, that there are NO physical mint marks, but because of the year, we know where the coins were minted..... so why not show the mint in some form or other?

But the mints are listed, as comments on the yearlines.

I believe that the page is fine as is, but I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.

I understand the point (of showing the mint with a dedicated column next to the year rather than in comment), but currently it is not possible.

Currently: Mint letter column shall be used when there is a mintmark/mint letter on the coin, rest (mint full name, indication for plating, etc.) shall go to the comment line. If all years have a mint letter then no need to repeat in the comment each time as this is summarized in the mint section above.

Цитата: "pejounet"​I understand the point (of showing the mint with a dedicated column next to the year rather than in comment), but currently it is not possible.
​
​Currently: Mint letter column shall be used when there is a mintmark/mint letter on the coin, rest (mint full name, indication for plating, etc.) shall go to the comment line. If all years have a mint letter then no need to repeat in the comment each time as this is summarized in the mint section above.

​I completely agree, let's not invent mintmarks where there are none

Цитата: "pejounet"If all years have a mint letter then no need to repeat in the comment each time as this is summarized in the mint section above.

Agreed. I always wondered why such as this page below had all lines [24 of them] with same letters
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3406.html
as just one example.
​

Цитата: "Some_Nerd"​

Цитата: "pejounet"​I understand the point (of showing the mint with a dedicated column next to the year rather than in comment), but currently it is not possible.
​​
​​Currently: Mint letter column shall be used when there is a mintmark/mint letter on the coin, rest (mint full name, indication for plating, etc.) shall go to the comment line. If all years have a mint letter then no need to repeat in the comment each time as this is summarized in the mint section above.
​
​

​​I completely agree, let's not invent mintmarks where there are none

​It's not inventing non existant mintmarks, but a code for the mint used for that years minting.....